57 
itorial rights, contrary to assurances of Her Majesty’s 
vernment that the right of fishing should not be inter- 
“fered with without the consent of the Colonial Legislature, and 
« that the arrangement was objectionable as indicating the admis- 
4 sion of non-existent concurrent rights on the coast. 
_ YT replied to the above telegrams by mine of the 18th inst., 
ei m which I expressed the fear which I entertained that the 
. ‘adoption of the resolutions which you reported would ‘not 
“improve the prospect of an ultimate settlement most favourable 
“to British claims. I remarked that there was some misappre- 
“hension in supposing that any British territorial or other rights 
“were prejudiced by the modus vivendi, or that any French 
“rights were admitted. I pointed out that all questions of 
-“ principle and of respective rights on both sides were expressly 
” “stated to be reserved, and I added that neither Her Majesty’s 
_ Government nor the Colonial Legislature have the power of 
« declaring what are British and French rights respectively, and 
_ “that a provisional arrangement was necessary for the coming 
| if ‘season. 
_ * Your Ministers are, of course, aware that the views held by 
“the British and French Governments in regard to the rights 
G« “of their respective subjects, in the matter of the lobster fisheries, 
_ “are antagonistic; the French Government holding that the 
"establishment of British lobster factories on that part of the 
| « coast of Newfoundland to which the rights of French subjects 
_ “extend is contrary to the engagements entered into by this 
| “ country with France, while Her Majesty’s Government contend 
“that the French have no right to fish for lobsters, and con- 
_ “sequently that the erection of lobster factories by them is in 
_ * excess of the privileges granted by those engagements ; and the 
“ fact of this divergence of views has given rise to the necessity 
_ “of some modus vivendi for the coming season, so that time 
, may be given for effecting some more permanent settlement. 
“© The modus vivendi agreed to makes no concessions of right 
“to the French, neither does it in any way detract from the 
_ “ maritime or territorial rights of the colony, and therefore does 
' “not infringe the assurance contained in the despatch from the 
“Secretary of State (Mr. Labouchere) to Governor Darling, ot 
_ “the 26th of March, 1857, which, it is presumed, is the assurance 
‘ referred to in the resolutions of the two Houses. That assurance 
